13 angry men

Nine years after the gang rape, Mai’s struggle for justice ended with the court ordering five of the six accused to be freed. A distraught Mai, who has won international acclaim for her bravery in a deeply chauvinistic society, said that the release of the men had put her life in danger.

It was such a pretty story. Her 12-year-old brother was accused, falsely, of having sex with a woman from another clan. To punish the brother, the village “elders” sitting as a tribal “court” decided Mai should be gang-raped, and so she was. 14 men were accused of carrying out the “sentence.” Only one has been found guilty.

“I am scared these 13 people will come back to my village and harm me and my family,” Mai said, in her remote home in the south of Punjab province. “I have lost faith in the courts and now I am leaving my case to the court of God. I am sure God will punish those who molested me.”

Mai has started a school for girls and a non-governmental organisation that promotes women’s education. She vowed that she would not flee her village, and would continue with her work.

59 Responses to “13 angry men”

Fuck me. Humans can really be inhuman. No, non-humans generally aren’t capable of being this cruel. Humans can really embrace our darker side when it suits. Is it religion or culture or both? Removing or taming religion would be a good step in any case to stopping this shit. It reinforces the supposed inequality between men and women.

2) One day soon we’ll be reading an article on her body being found, and a few years down the road we’ll be reading another article saying all suspects ( if any are actually charged) are being acquitted.

Also add: Various worthies will add that whatever one might think about the cases like that of Mukhtaran Mai, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Islam, and one must treat it with respect. After all, it is one of the world’s Great Faiths.

It’s a bit of a dilemma for me. As an atheist I abhor all religions, regardless of their origins, but at what point can I say that one in particular constitutes a disproportionate menace to humanity… in some ways more immediate than global warming, etc?

Well, I think you’ve said it all, in so far as anyone can say anything when faced with this. If I hear another accommodationist whine I swear I shall start screaming. These religious male monkeys will start banging on about “honour” next. If they really want to know what that is, they should try to look clearly at Mukhtaran Mai. Fat chance!

Some apologists will say you can’t blame Islam for this. That this behaviour isn’t in the Koran. That Islam can’t be blamed for every atrocious act committed by Muslims.

But I think we can criticise Islam for this. An unequivocally evil act was committed and covered up by a group of Muslim men. Their Islamic education, and the Islamic ethos of the society, did nothing to prevent the act or punish the offenders.

The Islamic institutions in that country are clearly unable to inculcate a basic sense of morality or justice.

Only the RC’s failure to prevent child abuse appears to be remotely comparable, and for that, the RC is being heavily criticised.

The story is all too common, and the juxtaposition of sexual repression and sexual violence all too evident. I try to imagine living in a clan culture, where someone is accused of consorting with a rival clan. The tribal elders assemble and…order the rape of his sister!? That can only happen where women’s sexuality is considered depraved, and that can only happen in a deeply religious culture.

Quite. (What Liam said.) I don’t know that the “village elders” who ordered the gang rape of Mukhtaran Mai said or thought they were enacting Sharia or heeding something in the Koran or anything like that. I don’t think I’ve seen anything claiming that they were. But I certainly haven’t seen anything saying the village is not “Muslim” at all – that it’s secular or Hindu or Mormon or some other unlikely-for-Pakistan thing. It seems fair to assume, unless informed otherwise, that a village in Pakistan “is Muslim” in the usual sense – most or all people there consider themselves Muslim and the people – the men, that is – in charge see themselves as at least sharia-compliant. It seems fair to assume, until told otherwise, that the village elders consider themselves Good Muslims. So being a Good Muslim, in their view, is entirely consistent with ordering a woman to be raped by 14 men as “punishment” for a faked-up accusation against her pre-adolscent brother, and then forcibly marched naked through the village.

The tribal elders assemble and…order the rape of his sister!? That can only happen where women’s sexuality is considered depraved, and that can only happen in a deeply religious culture.

It’s actually even more basic than that. It’s a shame culture, and it’s one in which women aren’t people at all.

Rape isn’t a crime against women, you see; it’s a crime against her owners, who are of course by definition male. Raping the sister of a male accused of forbidden sex is not punishing or harming the sister, because who gives a fuck about her; it’s punishing the accused male and all the male members of his family, by shaming them for being such pussies that they can’t control their filthy women.

I am no friend of religion in general, or Islam in particular, but I think there’s more going on here than a barbaric religion leading otherwise perfectly sane and respectful human beings to carry our abhorrent treatment of an innocent woman.

Sure they may well all be Muslims. But coincidence does not prove causation.

This happened in a barbaric society in which human life is valued little, and where power is given and wielded for survival. Men are more physically powerful and hold status which women can not even contemplate holding. While the treatment of women is beyond contempt, so is the treatment of many men in such societies. The same was true in clan-based/tribal and feudal systems in Europe a millennium ago, where Christianity was the background religion, not Islam. All the Abrahamic religions have barbaric aspects to them, and all contribute to, and are emboldened by, the barbarism of the cultures in which these religions are practised.

I am not arguing against challenging faith and reforming religions, just against targeting the wrong cause for this particular malady. IMO it’s the barbarous society in which human lives are valued so little which is truly responsible here. And correcting that may well reform religion too.

Disclaimer: I’m an Atheist. I don’t judge people based on what they believe, but rather how they act.

1. These people are clearly fucking insane. I wouldn’t shed a tear if all those involved in the rape and covering it up turned up dead wrapped in bacon.

2. Before people go off on Islam for being the root cause, how about some house cleaning? How many pedophile priests get shuffled from parish to parish without regard or compensation for their victims? How many women have been told, upon bringing an accusation of rape before a court, “You were asking for it by dressing that way”? Only half of all rapes in the US are reported, partially due to the intense shame and media spotlight often cast on women who report it.

Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone.

(As an aside, many people ask why I, an atheist, keep quoting Christ and other religious figures. I don’t believe in the whole “divinely inspired” thing, but I think those figures had some very useful and intelligent things they were saying, and I, as well as many other atheists, wish that their devotees would actually pay attention to them.)

My apologies – I walked into this from an external link (Blag Hag) and saw the usual “bash the religion, not the culture” stuff I see on other sites. Call it a knee-jerk reaction to the usual bullshit neocon hate I see on news sites. :P Should have read a little more about the site.

Some apologists will say you can’t blame Islam for this. That this behaviour isn’t in the Koran. That Islam can’t be blamed for every atrocious act committed by Muslims.

Not all of us are apologists. I wont only blame Islam for this – though it certainly contributes. But it seems to be one more example of fucked up male behavior – aided and abetted by customs and traditions that may not be religious. You can find similar examples in India for caste related gang rapes , class related gang rapes or even simply elopement without parental consent. A womans virginity being intact is equated to her “honour” is intact certainly predates Islam as does regarding a woman as property. Customs such as a “panchayat” determining the punishment of people are also customs that exist outside of Islam.

Though of course religion does help prop up these perverse institutions.

But it seems to be one more example of fucked up male behavior – aided and abetted by customs and traditions that may not be religious.

Go ahead, find me one at present. I do understand that the subjugation of women predates the emergence of the religions that codified it, but we’re not in a position to hold prehistory to account. We’re only able to address the current circumstances, in which the customs and traditions are decidedly religious.

The practice of having some (unqualified)village elders as the people who determine the fate of people is not a religious practice(where usually your religion is irrelevant – the decision is binding on all people in the village. Where do they get their punishments from? Certainly Hindus do it, Sikhs do it so you can’t say it’s just the Sharia law. And the treatment of women as sexual objects goes beyond religion. Im sure you don’t need me to provide examples.

Sure they may well all be Muslims. But coincidence does not prove causation.

I think that the dichotomy between the clean and unclean, the saved and the damned, is a consequence of all religions which promise an eternity in Paradise provided certain conditions are met. With God the common father of all the tribes, the basis is laid for super-tribal identity and organisation.

Islamic civilisation looks like it is going through a phase like the one Christianity went through in the Middle Ages of European civilisation. But the religion which sanctions, justifies and helps perpuate the greatest barabarisms and barbarities on the face of the modern Earth is undoubtedly Islam.

In the countries it has dominated it tolerates no real opposition, and from time to time it suits its priesthood just fine for innocents like Mukhtaran Mai to become sacrificial victims, scapegoats, object lessons or what you will.

I think Deepak Shetty is missing the point I made, and that Ophelia expressed more clearly.

It’s not that Islam caused this; it’s not that Islam is a partial cause of this.

It’s that being Muslim failed to prevent it.

In the same way that someone who covers up pedophilia, protects pedophiles, and exposes children to further danger by butting pedophiles in position of authority over them CANNOT be said to have developed a sophisticated moral sense, (indeed, they appear to lack even a basic moral sense), then people who think that ordering a gang rape CANNOT be said to understand even basic morality. That they found thirteen men willing to commit this crime suggests a lack of morality is not isolated.

One of the central claims of religious apologists is that it teaches people morality. Clearly, this is not necessarily so.

The gang rape of a teenage girl is not exactly a moral grey area; it is unequivocally wrong. That the Muslim institutions in the region cannot communicate such an elementary moral proposition suggests that they are seriously deficient in some way.

That people who have read the Koran can believe that this act is in accordance with it would suggest that the Koran itself is not entirely clear on the immorality of gang rape.

Superb, Liam. Thank you very much. And thanks, Ophelia, too. I’d like to add that male privilege underlies the whole damn lot: male customs, male religion. That’s why they cannot protect women, that’s why there is no real moral core. Male privilege and propaganda and threats and violence. And it’s so successful, the most effective propaganda yet devised. Even poor Mai is still hoping that God will deliver justice.

My point (in #12) was not that Islam caused or prompted or motivated the gang rape, because I don’t know that it did; I don’t remember having ever seen any claims that it did (the coverage goes back years, so it is a matter of memory now). I also have doubts that it could have – I’ve never (that I know of) seen any claim that sharia mandates gang-rape of a woman for an alleged sexual “crime” by her brother. People interpret their religion so that it lets them do what they want, much of the time, but all the same this one isn’t like stoning a woman to death for being raped; this one doesn’t match even a warped interpretation of an already warped putative “law.” This one is an outlier.

My point was, indeed, that Islam failed to prevent it. Remember Karen Armstrong? “Compassion is at the heart of every great religion”? The hell it is. It seems fair to assume, until we are told otherwise, that the elders of this village pride themselves on being Good Muslims. That was compatible with this ridiculous, brutal, arbitrary, hateful “ruling.” Their being Good Muslims didn’t make them good people. They’re horrible people. Horrible. Their religion has failed to teach them not to be that kind of horrible. In their minds, at least, it’s consistent with being utterly loathsome.

To put it more broadly, Pakistan is conspicuously and increasingly Devoutly Muslim. So is Saudi Arabia. So is Somalia. How does that play out in terms of human relations?

I don’t know… Perahps Islam didn’t cause this outrage but I would say that facilitated it. There is something about Islam, a belligerency, an aggressive certitude, a (murderous) militancy that seems to encourage this sort of behaviour. The exact opposite of “compassion”, in fact.

What do we know? We know that the comfort of believers is bought, not by the once-for-all sacrifice of God Incarnate, but by the never-ending torment and blood of thousands upon thousands of martyrs, and thousands upon thousands of their victims. We know that because some people choose to believe, others must be brainwashed or tortured or killed. We know that the Church will protect its reputation by protecting criminal priests, not by doing the decent thing and saying openly what has happened and taking steps to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. We know that Muslim authorities in many countries will stone women to death for no crime except that of being the victim of crime (and how is that really different from the situation of buggered children and raped nuns who are not considered worthy of protection from further outrage?). We know that clarity of thought ceases to exist when dearly held beliefs are questioned: we have confusion and justification and excuses, or we get logical arguments that are invented to support a chosen position and which can never be proved. We know that belief will triumph over truth.

We know, then, that religious authorities lack any moral integrity, and that their beliefs, far from being the guarantors of any moral behaviour at all, are powerless to ensure it. That those who claim the right of moral guidance are disingenuous and corrupt, and that “the Truth” is a lie, and is maintained by lies, and taught by liars. If believers consistently lie even to themselves, how can they know what is true? If they have to fudge and shirk and wriggle, how can they know what is right? If compassion is served by torture, if truth and example are taught by lying and furtiveness, how can they understand love, or forgiveness?

If honour is only “my reputation” and is unthinkable in the case of mere females, how can they know what integrity is? You might say that this is a “tribal” thing, not religious, but I think that it underlies the failure of religion. Religion starts from tribalism, it continues to preserve its miserable “reputation” by abuse of power and lies. However much the religious protest that “we’re not like that now, we understand better now” it is never in the least clear that they are any different. It’s still the same tribal mentality.

I think that the tribal mentality is the raw male mentality, still untamed by civilisation, still ready to assert its “prerogatives”. God is a man, the “authorities” are men. The men’s club is still very much in business. The fact that it has taken the guise of “spirituality” and “compassion” and “morality” fools only the ones who want to be fooled, or who have not been taught any better. I can’t see any difference between a culture in which the males must always have what they want and a gang of criminals.

Alain – Well, yes, and more than that, an intense misogyny. Just about any brutal vindictive malevolent cruelty to a woman seems to be compatible with that “Islam.” There are those who have a different Islam, but…..they have an uphill battle.

The brother was raped even before this tribal “court” convened, so unbelievably enough, the “wronged” party in the case were already known gang-rapists. The accusation against the brother may have been fabricated by the men who were caught raping him. (The authorities managed to convict some people in the brother’s case, though.)

My point was, indeed, that Islam failed to prevent it.

Exactly, although it should be pointed out that the village imam condemned the rape and alerted reporters, thin consolation as it may be. It seems that we don’t know enough to say to what degree Islam exacerbates this tribal “justice” and misogyny and to what degree it’s just subordinate to the tribal structure. Islam’s influence on Pakistan’s official legal structure is still another factor that makes it more difficult for the rape victims.

However I still think the failure to prevent something is a more difficult call to make. i think some of us would think that torture is unequivocally evil (or unjustified wars are unequivocally evil). Hence American institutions are clearly unable to inculcate a basic sense of morality or justice – given the Iraq war and waterboarding techniques used. Would that have been a fair thing to say?

If your point is merely what Ophelia makes “Compassion is at the heart of every great religion”? is rubbish- then yes no arguments there. A good muslim doesn’t make you a good human nor does being a good atheist. The difference is that the latter usually doesnt make that claim.

Actually, I wouldn’t say that was a fair thing to say. I recall being exposed to the ethics of torture in secondary education, where we were presented with question of whether or not you could justify torturing a terrorist to prevent the deaths of a hundred innocent people. Even in the USA, those in favour of torture went to great lengths to redefine it, (enhanced interrogation), minimize it, deny it, or distance themselves from it by exporting it to other countries. Such things were only necessary because there is a substantial percentage of Americans who would oppose torture.

There is no similar discussion about the ethics of gang rape; it cannot be construed as a lesser or necessary evil. Nor can the perpetrators have been in any doubt about what they were doing. The girl was condemned to rape simply as a punishment, (for another’s alleged transgression, to make things worse).

My point is that we can criticise Islam because it is not actually ineffective at communicating codes of behaviour.

Few Muslims have any illusions about the ban on alcohol, or the eating of pork. Blasphemy against Allah tends to produce large, international reactions at a grass roots level.

Where is the enormous Muslim protest at this travesty? Why are those rapists not in more danger from angry mobs than Salman Rushdie or Danish cartoonists?

As a system for teaching morality, it would appear to be deeply flawed

There is no similar discussion about the ethics of gang rape; it cannot be construed as a lesser or necessary evil.

Not to disagree with the rest of your post, but that might be exactly how they construed it – that it was necessary to deter people from the even more horrible act of approaching one of their own women.

But as I understand it, the victim was a member of the same tribe. How would raping a member of ones one group deter outsiders from approaching other members?

My point was only that torture is used in ethics classes, and rape is not, precisely because there are those who argue it can be justified in certain circumstances; it is less unequivocally wrong than rape. Or, it’s wrongness is less apparent to more people.

No doubt the ‘elders’ presented some justification for their ‘sentence’. I’m just saying it doesn’t take more than an elementary level of morality to see through it.

where we were presented with question of whether or not you could justify torturing a terrorist to prevent the deaths of a hundred innocent people.

And what bearing does a hypothetical unrealistic scenario have with what happened in America? A good number of people have found both the “enhanced interrogation” and the needless war evil(not an argumentum ad populum). At some level we recognise that whatever checks and balances are provided by the system failed – but we aren’t yet ready to throw away the system – It’s good , it just got subverted by a few people , right(some sarcasm intended)?

Perhaps Im not likely to see this as an Islamic(or even religious) thing given the numerous examples of similar behavior in India(especially caste related). In a lot of cases what happens seems to be orthogonal to religion – just horrific actions that were carried out by people who happened to be religious. I see misogyny as a bigger issue at hand. If Indian,you might say being religious doesn’t stop you from aborting your child because she’s female. But neither does being educated stop the same Indian. Or being rich or poor.

My point is that we can criticise Islam because it is not actually ineffective at communicating codes of behaviour.

Fair enough. However is there any institution that is effective?

Where is the enormous Muslim protest at this travesty? Why are those rapists not in more danger from angry mobs than Salman Rushdie or Danish cartoonists?

My point about torture and unjust wars is only that they are more equivocal than rape; some wars are justified; rape never is. Torture is alleged to have some utility in preventing greater evil; rape does not.

Torture in the US had to be denied and hidden under euphemism to prevent popular opposition.

My point about Islam is that, in response to those that say it teaches morality, we can point to this as an example where it failed to teach morality. It doesn’t take much to teach people that gang rape is wrong.

And yes, there will be the ‘few bad apples’ argument. But where is the public outrage? Where is the Fatwah against them? Why has the majority of Muslim institutions not responded with the same level of outrage to the violation of an innocent girl as they did to some cartoons?

It may be because of patriarchy, Pre-islamic misogyny etc, but why has the influence of Islam been negated by these forces? Surely Islam cannot be considered a force for morality when it cannot muster coherent opposition to gang rape?

I would argue that the criticism be labelled at those who would argue for a privileged position for Hinduism, if similar crimes are committed by Hindus.

To clarify, my point was in response to the hypothetical argument that Islam should be respected as a system for teaching morality. This event, and the lack of international Muslim outrage, argues against that.

To reiterate – that religion is not a source of morality is where I completely agree with you. Also your point that there are no demonstrations of outrage is also spot on – It shows you how skewed some religious priorities are.

however

Torture is alleged to have some utility in preventing greater evil; rape does not.

How about a hypothetical scenario where the terrorist is a woman and some study shows that sexual harassment is the most reliable way to extract information from a woman? Would you do it to save 100 people?

The other point I’m trying to make is that Americans believe (or are supposed to) in truth , justice , fairness etc etc. And clearly sometimes the system fails spectacularly. However very few Americans would be willing to go so far as the problem lies in the system – or even say that the system does not promote fairness,justice etc.

Similarly if Islam cannot negate other cultural issues why are we so quick to say Islam must be criticised? In my opinion only a causal relationship would warrant such a criticism (and for the record I think there is also some causality between Islam and treatment of muslim women).

Deepak, true that other things also don’t prevent misogynist brutality and the like – but religion does get a lot of credit for Making People Better. It’s worth pointing out that it doesn’t, when it doesn’t.

How about a hypothetical scenario where the terrorist is a woman and some study shows that sexual harassment is the most reliable way to extract information from a woman? Would you do it to save 100 people?

For the record, I am against torture, so no, I wouldn’t.

But in this example, sexual harassment, or rape, is being used AS torture. The purpose of torture is to make someone reveal information by making that the only way to end the suffering. ‘Talk, or else I’ll rape you…’

My point is that rape, AS rape, is more unequivocally evil than rape AS torture. People attempt to justify torture on the grounds that it saves lives in the long run; no such argument can be made for rape alone.

The above example you gave is actually about the ethics of torture; not the ethics of rape. There is no sense in which the gang rape of Mukhtaran Mai could be said to prevent a further crime or prevent terrorism. It was simply an act of punishment. Rape has never been used as an official punishment in European jurisprudence as far as I know; no-one has been officially sentenced to being gang raped. Elders passed the sentence; fourteen men were willing to execute it; only one has been convicted, and the Pakistani Supreme Court has ordered the release of five others. Thirteen of her rapists are now free to return to the village where she lives.

Similarly if Islam cannot negate other cultural issues why are we so quick to say Islam must be criticised?

Every system that fails to teach morality should be criticised. The Catholic Church should be criticised for its abject lack of morality in dealing with child abuse. People who claim that it should have a role in teaching morality need to justify this against the systemic failure of the organisation to protect children. How can someone discuss the morality of abortion if they have protected pedophiles from the police? “Don’t rape children” is not a complicated moral precept — a system that has produced significant numbers of people who would protect those who violate that precept is a system that cannot effectively teach moral behaviour.

Pedophilia, though, has it’s advocates, and there are those that argue that it is not harmful to children; that being anti-pedophile is the last bigotry. The rapists in Pakistan do not even have that much to defend their actions; the rape was ordered as a punishment; it was meant to cause harm, intended to do so. There are no books written by gang rape enthusiasts arguing that it is not harmful; it is absolutely wrong. Everyone knows this.

The American reaction to the revelation of torture was far stronger than anything I’ve seen from the Muslim world. And yet, there are those who would say that the problem lies in the system. Specifically, Zimbardo, (of Stanford Prison Experiment fame), argued in his book (The Lucifer Effect), that the conditions in Abu Ghraib were exactly the conditions he had found were most likely to produce abuse and torture of prisoners by guards. What’s more, he contended that people higher up in the chain of command were familiar with his research. He blamed the system for creating the conditions that broke down the soldiers ‘moral resolve’. (This does not absolve them of responsibility, though).

However, if a Nebraskan court ordered the judicially sanctioned gang rape of a Colorado woman, and found 14 Nebraskan men willing to do so, and the Supreme Court of the USA ordered the release of five, so that only 1 remained in jail – well, at that point, I think most Americans would accept that the problem IS in the system.

Finally, I don’t think that Islam should be singled out for special attention. Every society has its psychopaths and criminals. Any society that not only fails to curb their predatory intentions, but actually gives them an official seal of approval, deserves to be heavily criticised. Unless someone is willing to posit a far greater than average number of psychopaths and rapists in such a society, any claim that this system of morality is worthy of deference and respect would appear to be unsupportable.

As Ophelia said, religion claims that it Makes People Better. While these men are most likely simply amoral rapists, the official sanction by ‘elders’, the release of most by the supreme court, the lack of moral outrage, the fact that Salman Rushdie was declared an apostate, yet these men are not – all suggest that Islam doesn’t teach morality very well at all.

Rape is wrong. Torture is wrong. Because some people use a flawed argument to support torture does not make it either morally defensible of effective in seeking truth.

IMO, having read the facts of this case (which bear little resemblance to what I would gather from reading this thread) the guilty party here was uncontrolled power vested in brutal criminals who first raped a man, then deceived and raped his sister, followed by a state legal system which denied her restorative justice. Islam was impotent, not culpable. Religion may be guilty of many wrongs, but in this case the fault was plain thuggery.

To blame Islam for failing to prevent this abhorrent rape may be attractive if Islam-bashing is the purpose of this site. But it is equivalent to blaming Catholicism for failing to prevent Mafia murders. It simply misses the point that human nature has a dark side which needs civilised structures to constrain it, not a brutal clan system where there is no law enforcement.

Religion claims the moral high ground and we all know that to be absurd, that religion is impotent and irrelevant in the modern world. So let’s move on and deal with the real issues in this sordid matter.

(Sorry if I sound frustrated, I just had different hopes for this forum which may not have been realistic).

IMO, having read the facts of this case (which bear little resemblance to what I would gather from reading this thread) the guilty party here was uncontrolled power vested in brutal criminals who first raped a man, then deceived and raped his sister, followed by a state legal system which denied her restorative justice.

All of those facts were mentioned in this thread and the OP already, so I don’t know why you couldn’t gather them from here. I agree that it would be best to get as much of the facts as possible before making pronouncements.

it is equivalent to blaming Catholicism for failing to prevent Mafia murders.

People do blame Catholicism for not preventing Mafia murders; and for not excommunicating members of the IRA; and for defrocking priests who support female ordination but not for raping children.

No-one thinks the Catholic church made the mafia into killers, or pedophiles into pedophiles. People cite these examples as evidence that religion does not make people moral, despite the common refrain that religion is necessary to teach morality.

Yes, religion claims the moral high ground and that is absurd. Yes, human nature has a dark side that needs to be constrained. Many apologists for religion will say that religion is necessary to do so. The case above, and the reaction to it, shows this is not so.

@Windy: you have indeed added some key facts of the case in your comments, and have clearly based your comments on the reported facts of the case. But I have seen nothing factual which supports the contention that religion was a substantive factor in this outrage. Yet this thread is full of anti-religious comments, including:

“Removing or taming religion would be a good step in any case to stopping this shit.”

“Various worthies will add that… there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Islam.”

“As an atheist I abhor all religions… but at what point can I say that one in particular constitutes a disproportionate menace to humanity?”

“Some apologists will say you can’t blame Islam for this… but I think we can criticise Islam for this.”

“that can only happen in a deeply religious culture.”

“So being a Good Muslim… is entirely consistent with ordering a woman to be raped by 14 men as “punishment” for a faked-up accusation against her pre-adolscent brother.”

“It’s not that Islam caused this; it’s not that Islam is a partial cause of this. It’s that being Muslim failed to prevent it.”

“That people who have read the Koran can believe that this act is in accordance with it would suggest that the Koran itself is not entirely clear on the immorality of gang rape.”

I was interested to explore the crime against Mukhtaran Mai, the injustice of the acquittal of her assailants, and the causes of these. I challenge religion at every just opportunity, but try to base that on reason and fact. What I think I’ve found here is a zeal to blame religion for these crimes which is unfounded, and hints at anti-religious hysteria which is not what I sought. Indeed, I try to avoid giving religious apologists good reasons to dismiss secularists and atheists as irrational or hysterical. I appear to be in a minority here, so perhaps this is not the place for me to contribute. Best wishes.

What I think I’ve found here is a zeal to blame religion for these crimes which is unfounded, and hints at anti-religious hysteria which is not what I sought.

You don’t know that it’s unfounded, do you.

In any case I don’t see how you can dispute the basic logic. Religion is supposed to make people good, isn’t it? Given that, it would seem reasonable to expect very religious societies to be good – better than others – full of good people doing good things. Yet when we look at very religious societies – we don’t find that.

Pakistan is indisputably a very religious society – people who are not religious fear for their lives there, these days. Yet vicious brutality and injustice are institutionalized. Pakistan’s religiosity doesn’t make it a good place.

We’re allowed to talk about that.

I don’t like accusations of “anti-religious hysteria” – I don’t think religion should be immune from opposition.

Rape is wrong. Torture is wrong. Because some people use a flawed argument to support torture does not make it either morally defensible of effective in seeking truth.

No-one here has said torture is morally defensible, or effective at finding the truth.

What was said was that people sometimes make arguments in favour of torture in certain circumstances; discussions of the ethics of torture are included in basic ethics classes to foster debate; and many people appear to think torture can be justified in certain circumstances, eg Dershowitz.

There is no such controversy about gang rape. Everyone accepts it as plainly and simply wrong in all circumstances.

Therefore, the wrongness of gang rape is more obvious, more easy for everyone to see, less equivocal, than the wrongness of torture.

This does not mean that it IS less wrong. Only that people find it easier to accept that gang rape is always wrong.

I guess people can criticise what they like to criticise. But in my own view the onus is on the critic to show that the criticism is well founded. Nothing I have so far seen in this thread has provided any foundation for a substantive religious cause for these atrocities. So no, I don’t know that blaming religion was unfounded, but after 50 comments, I have seen no such foundation.

The impotence rightly cited is evidence against those who claim moral authority for religion, not against assumed parties in this case.

In terms of “accusations of anti-religious hysteria”, my intention was to highlight what I perceived to be an excessive focus on bashing religion which I did not see was justified by the reported facts. In accordance with my stated belief above, I provided examples which I view as providing a foundation for my view. However I had no intention to offend, and in hindsight my words may have been stronger than they needed to be. If they have caused offence then I retract them and sincerely apologise.

On the wider issue, I agree with almost all of your points about religion, and those of Liam too. I am no religious apologist, and fight to remove religious interference from education, legislation, the provision of public services especially social care, and from receiving tax revenue and other benefits. I object to the abuse of vulnerable people anywhere, including by religious clerics, and especially the covering up of criminal acts, including by religious organisations. I object to justifying discrimination, including on religious grounds, and for teaching children not to think for themselves, or not to value objective evidence over authority. I am a passionate critic of religion, but I still think such criticism needs to be based on substantive wrongs, and not assumptions of guilt. Evidence over discrimination must work both ways if it is to be respected, and religious groups should have much more to fear in this than secularists.

Ok here’s the thing – this site is 8 1/2 years old. It has a lot of background. You’re (as far as I know) new here – I think it’s a bit early for you to be offering your judgment of the site as a whole or even, really, this thread – a lot of what’s on this thread draws on the above-mentioned background. I’m not sure you know enough about it to have an informed view of what I’m doing rong.

There’s also, frankly, something rather self-important about a new reader delivering a condemnation of the site instead of just…not reading it any more. You know? You talk as if anyone had asked for your opinion. No one did.

This is a bit rude, I know, but a man accusing me of hysteria tends to bring out the rude in me.

My point is that rape, AS rape, is more unequivocally evil than rape AS torture

Im not sure why that is a point. both are evil (the degree of unequivocal-ness isn’t particularly relevant). Some institutions were supposed to prevent such things from happening – they didn’t. Why condemn only one of those institutions?

the Pakistani Supreme Court has ordered the release of five others.

I couldn’t get the details from the related articles – but wasn’t it lack of evidence (as opposed to something like the woman needs 2 male witnesses per sharia?). You see this in places like India/Pakistan – the local police screw up big time – either intentionally, or under threat or because of bribes such that the higher courts are actually unable to do anything. This is a failure of the government.

Any society that not only fails to curb their predatory intentions, but actually gives them an official seal of approval, deserves to be heavily criticised.

Sure. but has Islam o(r even most muslims) actually given an official seal of approval? This and many similar examples are how some tribes/clans deal with incidents. I dont see a direct relation to religion in this case, though as always religion does tend to tie itself up with the authority figures.

There is no such controversy about gang rape. Everyone accepts it as plainly and simply wrong in all circumstances.

Who is “everyone”? Isn’t the problem rather that there are still people who haven’t accepted it? (It might make perfect sense to people who think of women as possessions and consider it their duty to avenge insults to their ‘honor’)

Good point. There may indeed be those that think that gang rape is not wrong in all circumstances.

But my point was in relation to the comparison or rape and torture, in that it is easier to construct an argument justifying torture in certain circumstances than in favour of gang rape.

I would say though, that most people consider gang rape wrong in all circumstances.

Every society, however, must deal with individuals who do not want to follow a moral code. I don’t think it likely that every member of this tribal culture, or Pakistan, thinks gang rape is not wrong. I think it very likely that the majority of people there think it is a horrible crime, in much the same way that every social group considers killing members of the same group as a crime. (If not, then living in groups would be impossible).

And if that is not the case, if i am wrong about that, we can still make the point that Islam has not been effective at either breaking down the ‘us-them’ barrier, (“we are all Muslims”) or at teaching the majority of people that gang rape is more than a crime against property.

I do condemn the Americans for what they are doing, as do many others within Western society.

As to why one might react more strongly to the case in Pakistan, it is a question of degree. The americans had to hide the torture, deny it, euphemise it, stress out their soldiers and convince them they were potentially stopping another 9/11 to get them to start torturing people. And the response of the majority of Americans was outrage.

The response from the entire Muslim world appears to be much more muted. Especially compared to the response to Danish cartoons and Salman Rushdie. In fact, I have not seen any widespread, international Muslim response to this. Which suggests that the problem is not confined to tribal areas of Pakistan. No Iranian Mullah has declared these rapists apostates, unlike Salman Rushdie, for example. No mass protests.

As Mike Beard said, Islam was impotent. But why was it so? It wasn’t impotent when it was responding to percieved blasphemy. Pakistani converts to Christianity are in no doubt that Pakistani Muslims need not be weak nor lethargic; they flee for their lives.

It may be that cultural forces override the positive effects of Islam in these areas; outside these areas, other Muslims are loathe to criticise other Muslims, no matter how abhorrent their behaviour. Or it may be something else. But I can’t imagine a specific set of circumstances where the priorities do not appear to be inverted.

By ‘given the seal of approval’, I was referring to the tribal court that not only accepted these men’s lies about why they were raping a boy, but then told them that they should go and rape his sister too.

Again we agree more than we disagree , so Ill end my quibbles with just this – From my experience , were I a villager in a similar village, the “prudent” course would be to keep my mouth shut if concerns for my family overrode my sense of honour (which they usually would) – irrespective of the judgement passed by the tribal council – no matter how anti – religious I may be.

And again there is no disagreement that the rest of Pakistan should be expressing levels of outrage far exceeding what they do when someone draws cartoons.

allah approved misogyny is one of many severe problems with islam which is dangerous no matter how it is packaged…

the twin fogs of political correctness & ignorance must be dispersed before western society better understands this menace. even a brief review of islamic theology & history quickly exposes the deadly roots of this evil ideology.

see the links in the pdf version below for more accurate info about islam==========

islam is a horrible ideology for human rights

5 key things about islam

1. mythical beliefs – all religions have these (faith) because its part of being a religion: having beliefs without proof until after the believer dies. the problem is people will believe almost anything.

2. totalitarianism – islam has no seperation of church and state: sharia law governs all. there is no free will in islam: only submission to the will of allah as conveniently determined by the imams who spew vapors to feather their own nests. there are no moderate muslims: they all support sharia law.

3. violence – islam leads the pack of all religions in violent tenets for their ideology & history: having eternal canonical imperatives for supremacy at all costs and calling for violence & intimidation as basic tools to achieve these goals.

4. dishonesty – only islam has dishonesty as a fundamental tenet: this stems from allah speaking to mohamhead & abrogation in the koran which is used to explain how mo’s peaceful early life was superseded by his warlord role later.

5. misogyny – present day islam is still rooted in 8th century social ethics: treating females as property of men good only for children, severely limiting their activities, dressing them in shower curtains and worse.

conclusions ??

there really are NO redeeming qualities for this muddled pile of propaganda.

islam is just another fascist totalitarian ideology used by power hungry fanatics on yet another quest for worldwide domination and includes all the usual human rights abuses & suppression of freedoms.